Alpha Protocol Reviews

[Purkake]

Why not a gentlemanly deal? You finish ME2 and Volo will finish AP and then you can have a pistol duel at dawn to determine which game is truly better.

You seem to have missed the thrust of my last several messages: Why? The two games aren't comparable.

 

My argument has been "Why are you (general usage) invoking ME(2) when ME(2) isn't even the same genre of game".

 

If V wants to insist on doing so, then he's either proceeding on story (in which case he'll lose) or he'll do so on shooting mechanics (in which I'll concede...because AP isn't a shooter).

 

And if you want beleaguer the point, I've played (and finished...multiple times) ME. He cannot same the same of AP.

They are both at least pretending to be RPGs with dialogue, stats and everything. I don't see why you can't compare them, other than AP having the distinct disadvantage of being made on a smaller budget by a less experienced team.

 

Also, I think I already said my two cents on the ME2 vs AP front either in this thread or in the thread that announced no sequel for AP. And for the record, ME and ME2 are not the same game.

 

I can't help, but notice that you are clearly ignoring the disclaimer that I posted a few posts back.

 

What's your game, Wrath?

 

Then how do you explain **** Cheney with a shotgun being the final boss, huh, huh?

 

He mysteriously changed his race when I wasn't looking?

[Achilles]

They are both at least pretending to be RPGs with dialogue, stats and everything. I don't see why you can't compare them, other than AP having the distinct disadvantage of being made on a smaller budget by a less experienced team.

One of them pretends to be an RPG, yes. "Dialog, stats, and everything" does not an RPG make. GTA:SA had dialog and stats. Does that make it an RPG?

 

One of the games is space-fantasy/sci-fi with very little reactivity from the game world. The other is set in the real world with no fantasy or sci-fi elements and has a very high degree of reactivity.

 

So where do these circles overlap on your venn diagram? They both have guns? They both have stats? If you're going to compare them, then do so on the merits of where they overlap.

 

Writing? Yes, please. Let's have that conversation.

Shooting mechanics? We can have that conversation too.

 

If you can't make your argument against one game without having to rely on comparison to another, then I would argue that you don't have much of an argument at all. Don't like it? Fine. But if you don't like it because it's not enough like ME(2), then I'm not sure I have much sympathy for you.

 

Also, I think I already said my two cents on the ME2 vs AP front either in this thread or in the thread that announced no sequel for AP.

Okay.

 

And for the record, ME and ME2 are not the same game.

I'm sure they aren't. However after 7 years of exposure to Karpyshyn's work, I know where to set my level of expectation. He met that expectation with ME (which is why I consider it a guilty pleasure rather than a great game). I can't imagine why that expectation should change for the sequel.

 

EDIT: Just so we're clear, I'll repeat: I own (but have not played) ME2. If DK all of a sudden learned how to write between ME and ME2 I'll happily stand corrected.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Achilles

[Purkake]

Oh please!

 

I'm not going to argue whether ME2 is an RPG or not, you can have that conversation with Volo. Neither am I going to defend either game, they both had their flaws.

 

My point was that you are both arguing about two imaginary games, one based on you playing the previous game and one based on playing the first few hours. Just pointing out the ridiculousness.

[Achilles]

Oh please!

 

I'm not going to argue whether ME2 is an RPG or not, you can have that conversation with Volo.

k, so you're done here then?

 

Love how you're inviting yourself out of a conversation that you invited yourself to and acting as though I should take notice in the first place.

 

Neither am I going to defend either game, they both had their flaws.

At some point did I argue that AP was flawless? If not, then I'm not sure what your point is.

 

Did you read the part in my previous post where I stated that if someone can't critique AP without invoking ME, then they don't have much of an argument? Since you felt that the above had be stated (again), I'm guessing that the answer is probably "no".

 

My point was that you are both arguing about two imaginary games, one based on you playing the previous game and one based on playing the first few hours. Just pointing out the ridiculousness.

The ridiculousness is that I'm pointing out for the 4th or 5th time that I'm not comparing them at all and am actually arguing that no one should. Thanks for paying attention while you were here.

[Purkake]

I'm very distinctly trying to not get involved in the AP vs ME2 argument you were having. As for invitations, if you were having a private conversation, you chose the wrong medium.

 

How exactly are you arguing that no one should compare the two games if you haven't played one of them? It doesn't make any sense.

 

Mind you, I'm not saying that ME2 is AP's direct nemesis, but you don't have a leg to stand on if you haven't played the game.

[Achilles]

I'm very distinctly trying to not get involved in the AP vs ME2 argument you were having.

You must have me confused with another forum member. For the 5th or 6th time (4th or 5th was the last post), my position is that there is no basis for a AP vs ME2 discussion. I hope this is clear now.

 

As for invitations, if you were having a private conversation, you chose the wrong medium.

I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said

 

Obviously you're welcome to join or depart, but the depart part kinda seems a little silly if no one forced you join in the first place.

 

How exactly are you arguing that no one should compare the two games if you haven't played one of them? It doesn't make any sense.

Please make some attempt to read my posts before asking me to repeat them. I think I've make my point repeatedly.

 

Mind you, I'm not saying that ME2 is AP's direct nemesis, but you don't have a leg to stand on if you haven't played the game.

I'll invite for a third time to consider the point I made earlier about not having a leg to stand on if you can't critique one without running to the other.

 

You seem to be inviting me to compare the games even though I'm arguing that they aren't comparable. I don't know why you expect to get much traction from this tactic.

 

Let's try this. Let's pretend we live in a universe where ME and ME2 never existed. Got it? K, now let's talk about AP and base that conversation entirely upon what it did right vs where it fails.

[Purkake]

You presume too much and continue to miss my point. I get it that you don't want AP compared to ME2. I don't care about Alpha Protocol's virtues and follies whether compared to ME2 or on it's own, I have had discussion many times in many previous threads.

 

My point was that you can't say that ME2 is in a different genre from AP if you haven't played it.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Purkake

[Achilles]

You presume too much and continue to miss my point. I get it that you don't want AP compared to ME2. I don't care about Alpha Protocol's virtues and follies whether compared to ME2 or on it's own, I have had discussion many times in many previous threads.

Ok, then why are you here?

 

My point was that you can't say that ME2 is in a different genre from AP if you haven't played it.

Drew Karpyshyn is formulaic and predictable. I don't need to play ME2 to know this because I figured it out playing his last 3 games. So if you want to have the "ME2 has a better story than AP" discussion we can have it and I'll wager you're lose. And if you want to have the "ME2 is a better shooter than AP" discussion, I'll let you win because AP never marketed itself as a shooter, so there is no discussion to have. And if there some other overlap between the two games that you think is missing, you're welcome to point it out. V certainly hasn't and you seems to have taken up his mantle.

 

ME and ME2 (please tell me I'm wrong) are shooters with RPG elements (skill trees, customizable PC, dialog options, etc). AP is not a shooter with RPG elements. It is an RPG that has guns in it. Therefore aside from the two basis of comparison that I've outlined repeatedly, the comparison does not stand.

[Purkake]

Volo was laughed out for not playing the whole game, you haven't played it(ME2, that is) at all.

 

 

And yes, I'm here to point this out.

 

[Achilles]

And if I was on the Bioware forum critiquing ME2, you might have a point.

[Zoraptor]

Shaheed clearly matched Bin Laden

 

He's as much if not more the Sheikh from Syriana as OBL- there's a fair bit of symmetry in the way Shaheed 'dies' to how the Sheikh in Syriana dies for example, though they aren't that similar in other respects.

 

 

Then how do you explain **** Cheney with a shotgun being the final boss, huh, huh?

 

But he doesn't shoot you if you were on the same side as him, you just smoke cigars...

 

 

...more seriously, there is an oil exec in Syriana called Leland.

[Purkake]

And if I was on the Bioware forum critiquing ME2, you might have a point.

...because you don't need any credibility to make arguments here.

[Achilles]

Gee, I was hoping I could get by on logic alone.

[Purkake]

Your brand of logic seems to work pretty bizarrely.

[Achilles]

Your brand of logic seems to work pretty bizarrely.

That arguments for or against one game should not be dependent upon the arguments for or against another, dissimilar game seems like bizarre logic to you?

 

Perhaps the problem is not me, sir.

 

EDIT: P.S. You've been invited repeatedly to point out where I am wrong and instead have opted to repeat yourself, say you were leaving, and resort to name-calling. Should I assume that you have nothing legitimate to contribute to this conversation?

Edited July 21, 2010 by Achilles

[Purkake]

Your brand of logic seems to work pretty bizarrely.

That arguments for or against one game should not be dependent upon the arguments for or against another, dissimilar game seems like bizarre logic to you?

 

Perhaps the problem is not me, sir.

 

EDIT: P.S. You've been invited repeatedly to point out where I am wrong and instead have opted to repeat yourself, say you were leaving, and resort to name-calling. Should I assume that you have nothing legitimate to contribute to this conversation?

I'm still not arguing whether or not we should compare games to each other, how hard is that to understand?

 

I'm arguing that you can't make any arguments about ME2, in whatever context without having played it, or at least do it with any credibility.

 

I repeat myself, because you don't seem to understand.

[Volourn]

" This is a story-driven RPG for people that like story-driven RPGs. "

 

That's awesome. I love story RPGs. MTOb and PST are just two to come to mind, and sorry dude AP isn't even in the same disucssion. It's not even story focused, and mostd efinitely not at the level of 'real' story focused games. AP is just a horrible. I just AP as a RPG, and it's a poor one. Plain, and simple.

 

And, yes, you can comapre ME2 and AP. Just as you can compare IWD and PST or FO and BL. Or BG and BG2. Or whatever.

 

This idea you need to finish a game before being able to 'judge' it is silly. It's damn if you do, damn if you don't. If you don't finish a game then you cna't judge it; but if you fionish a game you likely liked it. Double edge sword.

 

AP is a poor RPG. The sad fact is that teh combat is the ebst part of the game as the story is atrocious, the C&C is overrated, and the characters are garbage. they don't match up to Obsidian's prior games.

 

And, no matter how you try to make stuff it won't change it.

 

How in the bejebbers is AP's story deep and complex? It isn't.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Volourn

[Achilles]

I'm still not arguing whether or not we should compare games to each other, how hard is that to understand?

"Why not a gentlemanly deal? You finish ME2 and Volo will finish AP and then you can have a pistol duel at dawn to determine which game is truly better."

 

Sound familiar?

 

I'm arguing that you can't make any arguments about ME2, in whatever context without having played it, or at least do it with any credibility.

 

Why? How many of Drew's game must I play before I can say that his writing is terrible without risking losing "credibility"? Are you arguing that I must play every single one before I can make assumptions ABOUT THE WRITING?

 

Clearly you are missing the point I've raised repeatedly that if we are going to compare the two games ON THE BASIS OF THE WRITING, that I'm confident AP will win? Because I like to pull **** out of my ***? Or perhaps I feel I have a greater-than-passing familiarity with both writer's work?

 

I mention the writing here specifically because I've already conceded that you can have whatever argument you wish to have about the shooting. I've also invited you to introduce whatever other areas of overlap you feel the two games have. About 3 times now.

 

I repeat myself, because you don't seem to understand.

That's your opinion. My opinion is that you repeat yourself because it allows you the opportunity to continue posting without actually addressing anything I say.

 

 

@V - I'm finished feeding the troll. You comment on C&C didn't play the game long enough to take advantage of any of the perk or see any of the repercussions of any of the relationships. Yet somehow you're blown away by loyalty missions. kthxbai.

[Hassat Hunter]

How in the bejebbers is AP's story deep and complex? It isn't.

 

Heh, you're right.

It should have been... "Here, blast a T-1000 terminator for no good reason, and that's about all the plot you get for the entire game"... Then the story would have been LEGENDARY .

[Achilles]

How in the bejebbers is AP's story deep and complex? It isn't.

 

Heh, you're right.

It should have been... "Here, blast a T-1000 terminator for no good reason, and that's about all the plot you get for the entire game"... Then the story would have been LEGENDARY .

Go easy on him, HH. He didn't even finish Saudi before deciding the story sucked, so he actually hasn't had the opportunity to see any one of the dozen or so possible endings (each of which is dependent upon other decisions made in the game).

[Volourn]

"Heh, you're right.

It should have been... "Here, blast a T-1000 terminator for no good reason, and that's about all the plot you get for the entire game"... Then the story would have been LEGENDARY"

 

Never claimed ME2's story was deep or complex. It's absically collect allies and go after the big bads. Both games' story are not deep. however, ME2 has fun combat, enteresting characters, good writing, and other things that make the fact the story isn't super deep not as uimportant.

 

Just like PST's story is so good that it doesn't matter AS MUCH that the combat is subpar.

 

 

"He didn't even finish Saudi before deciding the story sucked, so he actually hasn't had the opportunity to see any one of the dozen or so possible endings (each of which is dependent upon other decisions made in the game). "

 

I played enough of the game, and read enough spoilers to know playingt he game further won't make the story any deeper than it is, the characters any more interetsing, or the C&C any more impressive than it is.

 

Someone who played the game twice posted a bunch of spoilers that AP fanboys' celebreted C&C is a myth.

 

 

Why in the bejeebers should I finish a crappy game when I instead go play the awesome MOTB again. Now, that's a real Obsidian RPG to be proud of.

[Bos_hybrid]

You comment on C&C didn't play the game long enough to take advantage of any of the perk or see any of the repercussions of any of the relationships.

 

Edited July 21, 2010 by Bos_hybrid

[Chaste]

Heh, you're right.

It should have been... "Here, blast a T-1000 terminator for no good reason, and that's about all the plot you get for the entire game"... Then the story would have been LEGENDARY .

 

For what it's worth, they do have a perfectly good reason to blast the last boss of ME2.

It is, after all, the next generation of Reapers which are based off the human race. Y'know, the Reapers which they had a hell of a lot of trouble fighting just one of during the first game? That T-1000 boss also happens to be the reason why entire human colonies have been collected: they're being turned into materials for its construction.

 

 

People seem to forget that ME2 is a direct sequel of ME and thus, any discussion of its story should be done in reference to the first. On its own, ME2's story lacks luster because it's incomplete. In this regard, I don't really think it's fair to compare AP and ME (1+2) in story (yet) as the ME saga is obviously not yet finished. That is why I'm comparing AP and ME based on what's currently done: their presentation (both in gameplay elements and construction). And for that, my vote goes to ME. I can count several instances in the ME saga where I feel pumped, where I'm drawn in to the whole thing, where I go "Okay, it's time to kick bad guys' butt!" (the whole point from Ilos to the Citadel, all the rousing speeches, the siege on the Collector base, as examples). The whole ME saga so far gives me the feeling of being a bad ass warrior, able to lead people to hell and beyond. And that's only possible because of Bioware's presentation of the game. Contrast that with how Obsidian presented AP. Sure, I was able to tailor Mike Thorton to my liking, but I never for one moment felt that epic feel of taking on something. That is what I meant when I used the analogy of movies in my earlier post.

 

And for what it's worth, I consider both games as RPGs. Dunno why, but 15 years of playing wRPGs is telling me that both can be classified in the genre.

Edited July 21, 2010 by Chaste

[Volourn]

"And for what it's worth, I consider both games as RPGs. Dunno why, but 15 years of playing wRPGs is telling me that both can be classified in the genre."

 

Totally agree. People try to pegion hole RPgs into their ideal defintion; but says a lot when, in reality, different games like POR, PST, and Morrowind (which i loathe) can all be considred RPGs.

 

People need to remember that RPG doesn't enccessarily mean good.

 

There are good RPGs (FO), and bad RPGs (TOEE).

[Flouride]

I played enough of the game, and read enough spoilers to know playingt he game further won't make the story any deeper than it is, the characters any more interetsing, or the C&C any more impressive than it is.

 

"I read first thirty pages of LOTR and decided the whole book series suck. I also watched the trailers and read some fansite for spoilers, damn those characters and story are baaaaaaad."

 

Faulty logic is faulty.

 

There's huge difference when it comes to representation/interactivity within games, books and/or movies if you compare that to small or long spoilers found on some forums/fansites.

 

In case you still don't understand I'll try to explain. It is somewhat different to read a bunch of spoilers from a website than to actually playthrough the damn story and interact with the characters within the game. Other is written by someone living at his parent's basement, done in haste and most likely has grammar errors, missing info etc. The other is written by someone who actually gets paid to do that and is presented with good voice acting that actually will bring those characters and story "alive" instead of just reading some wall of text etc. etc.